Riverside Info » About Riverside

2010 budget

(80 posts)
1 2 3 ... 8

  1. JillM
    Member

    Riverside's 2010 budget will be voted on next month. Based on Mr. Watchel's projections, we're in trouble by 2011. What to do? Cut services (fire, police, public works)? Increase revenue?

    If the latter, that can't happen, really, without a vote to increase taxes, and that's what it looks like we might need. Higher parking stickers and building permits aren't going to do it.

    And waiting until the end of the current majority board's term ends will be way too late.

    Spending out our reserves reduces our bond rating, which I think most would agree is a bad idea.

    What do we want for Riverside? What do we want for 10, 20, 30 years down the road?

    Sad fact is, we need to deal with this NOW. Red numbers on the spreadsheet are clear.

    We aren't the only municipality dealing with decreased revenue. The second largest city in Illinois, Aurora, has an estimated deficit of $19 million deficit for 2010.

    Come to the budget input meetings if this alarms you.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 03:26 #

  2. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Any suggestions of your own?

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 07:23 #

  3. commonsense
    Member

    It is time to face the facts. The board has to decide how to protect our home values while keeping us afloat. If the Village opts not to maintain services and infrastructure, if they cut recreation and don't support businesses, if they allow our tree stock to decline each one of these things will cause our home values will suffer.

    Unfortunatly, I don't have suggestions because the budget meetings have taken place under the cover of darkness of Lonnie's backyard. Ask us again after the board meeting Monday night.

    We are walking on a tightrope created by the RCA.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 08:43 #

  4. JohnM
    Member

    There are only 2 options. Increase revenues or cut services. Increasing revenue in any meaningful way will, unfortunately, require a tax increase. Cutting services is a possibility, but speaking for myself, I think we're approaching the bare minimum of services anyway. Cutting services also means cutting infrastructure programs, which means that our downtown is going to continue to languish and our tree stock will continue to decline.

    During the election, the RCA constantly promoted the idea that Riverside did not have a revenue problem--it had a spending problem. I wonder if they still believe that now that they've seen the numbers.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 09:10 #

  5. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I don't think the RCA created the tightrope. Communities and states all over the country are running into this problem. The RCA wisely, I think, wanted to look at spending first. Once they're convinced money is not being wasted, they'll have to look at revenue. I don't know how they can do anything else, and I don't think I would have done it any differently.

    Regarding services, I don't know about you but my household has cut more than a few services that were 'nice to have.' With a fixed amount of money coming in, and that fixed amount very likely decreasing in the future, I think all you can do is look at expenditures. Trillions of dollars of wealth evaporated. There's not going to be more money coming in any time soon, and we better get prepared to live on less.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 09:54 #

  6. JohnM
    Member

    Chris,

    What services in Riverside fit into the "nice to have" category? We have an understaffed police department, a public works department that could certainly use a few more employees and a Rec department whose offerings are probably the most limited in the surrounding area (that's not a criticism--I think they do a great job with what they have). What can we cut? More importantly, what can we cut without severely impacting our safety, our infrastructure or our quality of life?

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 11:05 #

  7. commonsense
    Member

    The RCA most certainly did create the tightrope. They fought against and ultimately defeated both alternative sources of revenue despite the warnings of previous boards. No matter how you fell out on the TIF or past Tax Referendum, we now live with the impact, the realities of a lack of revenue.

    The board must now identify what we need to protect home values and get rid of the rest.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 12:08 #

  8. KimJ
    Member

    The reality of the TIF would have been over $100,000 MORE spent on the implementation, and ZERO dollars generated in increment, for who knows how long, since the value of our real estate has gone down, not up. So TIF comments regarding income don't fly. We would be that much more in debt at this time.

    In retrospect, the Tax Referendum probably asked for too much.

    Kind of like D96 did, as they spent $17 Million last year, and still have a $3 Million surplus. (They have accumulated approx. $9 million in surplus over the last 5 years! Ironically, $9 Million is the Village's yearly budget.)
    BTW, before the referendum 5 years ago, they spent on average between $10 & $11 Million per year. So it goes to show, if you got, you use it!
    And a hearty "Thank you taxpayers!" say all the happy 5th grade mommys that need a new laptop!

    Back to the Village, residents at the time of the referendum were beginning to suffer unemployment, wage cuts, then, and most likely too gun shy to commit themselves to any extras.

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=4327&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=17&S=1

    Voting 'yes' an investment in Riverside
    Saying "yes" to Riverside on Nov. 4 will cost the average homeowner a dollar a day. This is not an insignificant amount, but it is an investment that will bring much good to our village for years to come. "Yes" leads us forward; the easy way out leads us nowhere.
    Ben Sells
    Riverside
    Ben Sells is a Riverside village trustee.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 13:01 #

  9. TonyM
    Member

    Kim- Your last post is a testament to how poorly the Assessor's Office and the Village has communicated the effects of the recent reduction in assessed home valuations. The reduction in valuations will NOT have an impact on your tax bill - the taxing entities would need to reduce the amount that they levy (amount asked for) in order for homeowners to see a reduction. The impact of the proposed TIF would have impacted residential taxes in a unrelated manner.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 13:32 #

  10. KimJ
    Member

    Tony,
    I have no idea what you are talking about.
    TIF revenue is generated thru the "increment" in the increased assessed value of a property. (Of which you make note above that there has been a "recent reduction in assessed home valuations.")
    If the value of the property stays the same, or declines, there is no increment, thus no revenue for the TIF district.
    There is a plethora of TIF information available at this websites home page, which you can click on above if you want to be brought up to speed.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 14:17 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 ... 8

Reply »

You must log in to post.